MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170321757 · doi:10.1128/jcm.05100-11

Divergent Rifamycin Susceptibilities of Clostridium difficile Strains in Canada and Italy and Predictive Accuracy of Rifampin Etest for Rifamycin Resistance

2011· article· en· W2170321757 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark A. Miller, Ruth Blanchette, Patrizia Spigaglia, Fabrizio Barbanti, Paola Mastrantonio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Microbiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtestRifamycinMicrobiologyAgar dilutionClostridium difficileAgarBiologyCefoxitinrpoBAntibioticsVirologyMinimum inhibitory concentrationBacteriaGeneticsStaphylococcus aureus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the activities of rifampin (RIF) and rifaximin (RFX) against 180 Clostridium difficile clinical isolates selected from Canadian and Italian culture collections. MICs were determined by CLSI agar dilution for both drugs and by Etest for RIF. Sixteen of 85 Italian isolates (18.8%) showed high-level resistance to both rifamycins (MICs, >16 μg/ml), compared to 2 of 95 (2.1%) Canadian isolates. Two new rpoB mutations were identified in rifamycin-resistant isolates. RIF susceptibility by Etest correlated completely with susceptibility to both rifamycins determined by agar dilution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MicrobiologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207